Topic: Ixcoin TODO - page 63. (Read 631750 times)

I wanna thank Marshall Long for being instrumental in helping us get on Shapeshift.

I tried harassing Erik Voorhees for months but he wouldn't budge so everybody needs to give Marshall Long, props for really helping us out.

This addition to Shapeshift is really a big deal.

I'm now pushing hard to get listed with a major payment processor like GoCoin and of course, a major Chinese Exchange like BTC38 and/or BTCCHINA.

Oh yeah right. Sorry.

-MarkM-

nodes.dat = peers.dat?

Oops sorry, give it some time I just re-started ixcoind on one of those nodes, turns out it was not running on either as I am still trying to get all those machines converted over to Ubuntu. Evidently in the process of moving stuff off of there I had killed ixcoin on both machines without noticing. (It has so many nodes I didn't think mine were going to make or break anything.)

If your old wallet gets connections though you could copy its nodes.dat over...

...That might seem like messy clutter as likely it is full of long-dead nodes, but someone out there will know about thousands of long dead nodes anyway and tell you about them once you do connect so what the heck, dead nodes are going to always be cluttering up node files probably, no point worrying about that.

-MarkM-

just updated to IXC core 9.3

stuck at block 268296 (3 hrs behind)

above nodes didnt help - old wallet (0.3.24.30-beta) still syncs fine (when it eventually stops 'Not Responding')

dvcstable01.dvcnode.org and dvcstable02.dvcnode.org

-MarkM-

Can you post some nodes? No block source available...

test, lol , i think it is a frontal attack, look at this

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

Someone with some extra btc that has an agenda is pushing all these micro transactions

When you see long trees full of 0.00001 BTC tx , that my friend is a full on assualt, and likely by parties who want to 'shake up' the community of bitcoin into accepting larger blocks and other controversial changes to accomidate the payment processing industry.

Fortunatly the network is still run by the miners.

Otherwise btc would be a dead horse now.

I may be an American but I absolutly agree with f2 pool  and others in standing up to a few 'core' devs of btc to state they will not mine the alt coin xt.

That will never fly.  Ever.  It wouild be the end of bitcoin.

As far as your question on the iX network I see 11 ix blocks solved in the past 3 hours.

Low tx volume as usual.  Nothing unusual however the larger the blocksizes of btc are the move just a little slower around the network and any merged/child coin is likely going to suffer a minor performance hit in mining, along with bitcoin itself taking the largest hit.

Now , these statements are true for Eloipool merged mining.  I have not perfected nor tested (nor really understand) the one or two other methods to merge mine bitcoin and the child coins (Excluding p2pool).   I can only in small tests get 2 coins to work with i.e. a powerpool setup.

I believe Ahmed may know how to make a nice set up that would have a much lower chance of performance issues but cannot be sure......basing this on a quick few comments he and I exchanged a long time ago........

Also I believe both mmpool, and probably ghashio and f2 pool are probably using some type of customized merged mining setup's.

While on the subject in my prior posts I mentioned 2 features from updates in bitcoin I find desireable to include in future iX updates and one specific feature I find 'undesireable' to include. 

While it is an open sourced project, since ghashio and f2 pool are providing a lot of resources to keep iX coin running I believe they should be consulted as to how they would like iX to evolve.  Remember I am not really looking at things from a 'marketing' standpoint.....(except in the case of keeping the ability to have 3rd parties accept zero confirmation iX transactions if they want to take the risk)    ...... I look at things from a security standpoint. 

The fee sniping is to prevent people from 'messing round' with mining when tx fees are larger than the coin base award in the future of bitcoin which is the present of iX coin........... the openssl issue is certainly a good idea from a security standpoint if others are going to mine iX besides those who do now.  Open ssl consensus violations should not effect the ability of individual users sending coins with a client from point a to point b but can cause problems with invalid blocks in mining if not patched.  Again I think there is no emergency since these two pools basically control the network hash now.   

I don't think it a good idea we actually make any changes until someone checks with them (in private or public?) to see how they feel aboout any proposed changes......


If you want to see a list of the changes available since bitcoin 9.3 just look them up on the changes of each successive version since 9.3 bitcoin. 

The ones I stated to include (fee sniping and prevention of consensus violation from open ssl) should certainly be included and I don't think any experienced person who understands this code would argue that.   

As for other features hopefully in time ghashio and f2 pool will at least chime in on features they want included.

It may be an open source project but I would not want to upset them since if they ever turn off the juice................. soving an IX block for a long time will be like discovering a new prime number........ 

thanks John btc seed for a good question........... sorry my answer was so 'long' but it gave me the opportunity to bring up a few other items that should be considered before any large scale update of iX to the current codebase of bitcoin is undertaken.  Many features may be desireable but certainly not all imo........  I see no reason to hurry into this either since the iX network is running very well right now.

If someone wants to make a 'chart' a useful chart would be to list all features in btc 9.4, 9.5 ect.... to now and a short description of what they are and perhaps we can get some input from the 'owners' (pools) of this network what they are looking for.  I would certainly be willing to review and give my opinion and we can get the input of others here. 

Is the stress testing/ ddos attack on bitcoin affecting ixcoin blocks?

@markm Vircurex screwed me, i won't trade there again even if they came out of the woodwork and paid me - it's why i left them out

@mmpool thanks for input and good ideas on github management

@ahmed always cool to see you drop by

@vlad 8000 + posts !!!, i still can't get over that

I used to figure it simply wouldn't really be worth the time of firing up the daemon and waiting for it to catch up to the blockchain, so as to check how many IXCoins I actually owned (which I vaguely knew to be 20,000+) unless I was going to get at least a dollar fiat per coin.

So basically I just sat and waited to hear they were up to a reasonable price, meaning a dollar or more a coin.

Afterall, namecoin and litecoin were over a dollar. Why waste time mucking about with catching other coins up with their blockchains if they aren't even at a reasonable price yet?

Once I had enough bitcoins on Vircurex that I could branch out beyond simply trying to build a strong deep buy-side order-book for DeVCoin though, I started working on trying to build buy-sides for IXCoin and I0Coin; and now that they sill have not credited me the last two bitcoins I sent them that has means having to put some coins on the sell side simply as the only way to get bitcoins onto the buy side.

Really if Vircurex would fix its deposit-bitcoins routine (meaning, have the last of many many depositis of two bitcoins actually show up in my account so I can go on to risk sending another two, and if those arrive another two after that and so on) selling coins would not be necessary as I could just keep sending new bitcoins with which to build the buy-side order-books.

I mean really, come on, pennies per coin? A milion coins would only be worth $15000 to $30000 dollars? That is absurd.

The buy side for IXCoin is still pathetic because of the unable-to-deposit-bitcoins problem. An offer each 25 satoshis of price. A proper buy-side is like I0Coin's and DeVCoin's: an offer at every satoshi of price.

-MarkM-

-  I would say ~77% of all my posts are either directly or indirectly related to iXCoin.   #Dedication.  lol

-  Don't sell youself short, if I say you worked hard on that code then you did, even if it was to just repeatedly put up with me.   

-  I made the same observation back in 2013 as I was accumulating IXC and to test out my theory I pumped around 10 Bitcoins into ixCoin and took the price to an all-time high of 49,800 sat to prove that there were no sellers at a price way above market.  It took some time for my order to fill proving that someone out there had placed a high value on owning iXCoin.

But even after that little test, nobody believed me and I was still the lone iXCoin wolf.  Maybe one day [soon] everyone will see what I saw back then.   

thanks for the input mmpool. i'll try that out. seems a fair bit easier than my method of re-writing the bitcoin core to ixcoin.

Ahmed

I agree with you that there's no need to pull added features from bitcoin. I'd like to see an update to the latest bitcoin tree with those features not included just to gain the security and stability fixes. Like the openssl item you mention.

An approach to do this would be to do the update then selectively disable the new bitcoin features. I don't know how intertwined they are though.

For the curious this is how I go about updating old clients to newer code, assuming the codebase is from an original bitcoin fork with modifications added on top. There may be easier ways but I've found it useful.

I add both the old repository and the latest bitcoin as git remotes. I find the common ancestor of both repositories using 'merge-base':


I checkout that merge base into a branch and apply the ixcoin patches to that. It should apply relatively cleanly since it's close to the actual repository version:


Then checkout the bitcoin version you want to update to and do a rebase:


This will start a rebase by applying all changes to bitcoin one commit at a time. If any clash with the ixcoin changes then it stops, asks for a fix, and lets you continue:


What this approach allows is to analyse the bitcoin changes that specifically impact the ixcoin code changes as they happen. I find it easier than trying to apply the ixcoin patches on top of a new bitcoin where files have been renamed and moved, etc. it's still a fair bit of work but you can see progress as it shows you how many bitcoin commits are left in the rebase as you go.

Once done, generate the final patch:


This patch can then be applied to a clean bitcoin clone and renamed as ixcoin. There are probably other changes that would need to be made to fix internal global renamings etc but it's a process to get there.

lol Vlad you have over 8000 posts now


i wonder how many have to do with iX ??


Also the items requested by the new exchange are actually allready present in the current client and working. No code changes are necessary and honestly no "hard work" on my part was even done (just a few tests) although with information provided from Vlad I provided the representative with all  specifics they would need.  (Most likely they were using an out dated client)   

The network does not need to change nor does the client. Actaully just in case I included in my note exactly where these simple items can be turned on and off for someone who wants to build a custom client .........so I think if that happens for iX and they add it .........sure would be a good thing.

Hell they have coins on there I never even heard of , and a few (i won't name and shame) that are just plain 'junk' imo....

Also while keeping ix current with btc is a good thing in some ways it may be better not to include all features planned or upcoming for btc.

For example I pay a lot of attention to the discussions on the bitcoin github dev teams code and commentary.....

Being introduced soon is a feature that (without getting full tech on everyone here) will make it more difficult if not impossible for companies like coinbase to use zero confirmation transactions like they are used to doing now.  Of course they (the parties in between) absorb the risk for double spends with zero confirmations but I think keeping iX so it can retain this feature at least for now is something that should be considered.  Once bitcoin makes the planned change of rbf (replace by fee) it will not be able to reverse that.


Some of the items that are ahead of iX now in bitcoin that I certainly would like to include are the prevention of fee sniping and the update that can prevent 'consensus forks' from using different versions of open ssl......


For those so inclined those specific items are here:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2340

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/488ed32f2ada1d1dd108fc245d025c4d5f252783

Although not obvious including these features in iX as it stands right not is not just as easy as 'popping these snips of code' into the source !!

If I see things moving ahead for iX, when/if I have time I will make the pr(s) to github on the development tree we are using now assuming i get them tested to my satisfaction.

I do not normally discuss price/ economics of coins however I notice as btc is rising a few coins are rising a bit with it and many alts are taking a dive.  Ix is holding up very well and although the trade volume at both cex and cryptsy appears lighter than most coins I notice there is not very much iX for sale !!!!

That is rare for any coin.   Most coins, even bitcoin if you are willing to pay say 5%-10% premium from where the market rate is foating you can usually BUY almost as many coins as you like..........  not so with iX, you see many buy orders but the sell orders even as price goes up up up in the orderbooks to near or more than double the current floating rate on both exchanges do not have much 'inventory'............

Most alt coins as you are willing to pay more are like shelf paper , they sit and sit................. not iX,  I have no reason why this is just an observation.   

Some potentially important news.

It looks like we may be close to getting IXC added to shapeshift.  We just need to make some code updates, which Cinnamon is working hard to complete. 

I'm hoping this will get finalized and IXC added in the next few weeks.  Shapeshift has other coins they're reviewing and working on so I don't know how long it takes once we do our part.  And of course, this is iXcoin, anything can happen at the last minute.

Thanks to our board directors for their legwork to get this done and of course to cinnamon.

Happy 4th of July to all you Americans!

Cheers!

Posting useless graphics when you have never made any actual contributions to coding is a waste of time.
Remember no one has 'control' of open source projects , except maybe the community and who the community considers is the official githib.

I am not in favor of ix coin coming equal to 10.x core , i see no purpose for this.
The people who control the mining on the network afaik are not using the 9.x version.

Ahmed is active but is working alone on the .10 update so that may take a few more weeks.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33307314

With such a big event I would expect a total collapse.  Haha!